Is it "patently and demonstrably true"?

This article is 80% opinion and 20% descriptive statistics. There's no experimental, quasiexperimental, or qualitative research cited.

A systematic review from 2020 found that the evidence is mixed at best, and more research is needed: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673843.2019.1...

Ultimately, we have responsibilities to ourselves and our loved ones. Reflect on your life, talk to your friends and family, and if you think introducing restrictions on your social media use would improve your/their wellbeing, then do so and see if it helps. Xx

> Ultimately, we have responsibilities to ourselves and our loved ones. Reflect on your life, talk to your friends and family, and if you think introducing restrictions on your social media use would improve your/their wellbeing, then do so and see if it helps. Xx

Absolutely, and I'm not suggesting I shirk my responsibilities as a parent. One of the things that annoyed me when I was a kid was parents wanting to restrict TV and video games, because they didn't want to take their precious "me-me-me" time and devote it to actually raising their children.

This isn't the same thing though. You can be as present and involved as possible in your kids life today, but the web trumps all. It's all pervasive, all encompassing, and normalised. You could switch the TV off, or talk about problematic themes on it, but the web is a different beast.

If you lived through the before-times, you saw the difference between then, during, and after the iPhone. The kids have never been alright, but as one of those kids who was on the wrong side of the outer-edges of not-alright, I can tell you that the situation now is dire in comparison.

So you are advocating for even more discrimination and prejudice in society than there is already? Yes, prejudice because we are treating people based on a characteristic that may be completely unrepresentative of their character. This time it's age, not race, but that doesn't make it any less awful. We've been down this path before....

Nah, I can comfortably say that racial discrimination is worse than a minimum age.

But what about the humiliation that young people have to suffer from age discrimination. Being told that "you're not old enough" while being perfectly capable of handling the task, for example. Nobody complains because it's been normalized in society. Just as racial discrimination was, in the past. We only get outraged about it after it is gone, not when we are living through it.

In fact I feel somewhat, that some of the these types of discrimination is just a way for one group, i.e. adults to exert their dominance over younger people. Just as way of showing power. There might be some kind of unconscious primitive behavior at work here????

>Being told that "you're not old enough" while being perfectly capable of handling the task, for example.

It's "almost" like you're making an underage sex argument.

In fact, to not suspect that one would have to give you a lot of credit.

What do you think, are internet strangers going to give you the benefit of the doubt? Yes or no?

Children are restricted from some things because their minds aren't fully developed.

Downstream from that hardest of facts is general environment that commonly presents dangers to development, a unique vulnerability to adult criminal predation, an inability to give informed consent, and an inability to make independent judgement in service of their long-term welfare.

In contrast and in light of the above points, there are individuals like yourself whose aim is to undermine child protection.

Rational adults ask: to what end?

Just for another perspective; it reads like they are a teenager who feels competent and is frustrated by restrictions. I recall that being an axe to grind when I was 15-16.

Exactly how it was for me at that age, and I am speaking for those other people in the same situation.

To be fair, underage sex is not quite equivalent to underage people having social media.

The other poster's "discrimination" argument is kind of stretching it, but I feel like the core of the issue is that social media has a lot of positive aspects, and we should at least consider the relative significance of positive and negative effects of social media before banning it altogether.

How much do kids lose by not being able to communicate through social media? Is it more or less than how much they gain from such protection?

I would assume the loss of social media for children would be absolutely disastrous. We need to find other ways of dealing with the downside, instead of banning them from using it.

No it's nothing to do with underage sex. This is a prime example of the witch hunt mentality that I have been warning about in my other posts. And the opinions I have been expressing on this forum are a serious threat to parental power in society. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In fact, it's to do with autonomy and freedom of choice of children during their teenage years. I am opposed to coercive education and want to give children more choice in what they can do during their teenage years. Such as choosing their subjects at school.

I believe that teenage children are being micromanaged, they are being developmentally delayed by the restrictions imposed by adults, especially in this day and age. They might be exhibiting the same behaviors as a micromanaged subordinate in the workplace does.

And I am campaigning for children's rights because this micromanagement has severely affected me personally, and I do not want other people to go through the same.

Cap’n Picard:

“You are seeing this ship, all of us, from a unique perspective - from a child's point of view. It must seem terribly unfair and restrictive to you. As adults, we don't always stop to consider how everything we say and do shapes the impressions of young people, but if you're judging us, as a people, by the way we treat our children - and I think there can be no better criterion - then you must understand how deeply we care for them. When our children are young, they don't understand what might be dangerous. Our rules are to keep them from harm, real or imagined, and that's part of the continuity of our Human species. When Clara grows up, she will make rules for her children, to protect them - as we protect her.”

ST TNG - Imaginary Friend

In the case of teenagers ~15+ that is nothing more than social dogma passed down the generations. Dogma that is considered taboo in society to challenge. Done for their supposed 'own good', in the name of 'care'. Preventing them from learning though natural consequences. And stunting their decision making skills. So it's a self fulfilling prophecy, if you micromanage someone you will end up creating incompetence, as we know all too well from the workplace.

I cannot wait for the uprising or revolution to come against this in the decades to come. And I hope it will be spectacular. It's not a matter of if, it's just when.

It sounds like you were affected by an out-of-the-ordinary experience. I was too—grew up in a "lord of the flies" environment. Wasn't as great as it sounds </sarcasm>.

Took me a decade+ to dig out from that hole socially... one resulting from a lack of competent parental guidance. The experience limits my career to this day, a glass ceiling due to credentialism prevents me from taking advantage of the best opportunities.

Also, no one told me until many years later that your brain does not fully mature until you're about twenty-five. So expect to do a lot of stupid shit until that age.

> I cannot wait for the uprising or revolution to come against this in the decades to come. And I hope it will be spectacular. It's not a matter of if, it's just when.

There _will_ be a revolution, but it'll be in your head — when you're older.

This is often experience discrimination rather than age discrimination.

It’s ok to gate keep certain things based on experience. Experience is valuable.

Experience discrimination is a cornerstone to how we credible resource the most important problems in our society.

> But what about the humiliation that young people have to suffer from age discrimination. Being told that "you're not old enough" while being perfectly capable of handling the task, for example

It's called "being young", you'll get over it.

I remember feeling pretty pissed off about this very thing around 16, but I had completely forgotten until just now when I read your comment.

An unpopular truth — that'll no doubt send you into a fit of rage, apologies — is that "you'll understand when you're older" is a cliche for a solid reason. Every one of us who says that, was your age, and felt the same way you do now. There's nothing new under the sun.

Some constructive practical advice though: Prove the adults wrong by working around the limitations and restrictions placed on you. You'll be amazed how quickly they scramble to move them out of your way. You don't even need to succeed, it'll be enough that they see you're trying your best despite the obstacles.

Surely that depends on the age? I don't think a minimum age of 65 to vote in elections is any better than a racial requirement.

Prejudice is defined as: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience: prejudice against people from different backgrounds

• dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions

Let me tell you that my opinions on people under 30 are 100% based on reason and actual experience. Some of it is even judgement on _me_ when I was under 30.

Don't take it personally, people just haven't gone through a certain amount of life before 30. It doesn't make them bad, or less deserving of respect. But let's be real, giving someone respect as a human being isn't the same thing as taking their opinions on say, how society should be run, as seriously as someone who's older.

This is of course generalising, as you're going to get a few 21 yearolds wiser than a few 51 yearolds, but that's how generalisations work; they're true in _general_. It's become common-place to see generalisations as an automatic bad thing, but bear in mind they serve a function, and are even how brains work.

Yes, and these generalizations are the crux of why prejudice is wrong. We cannot discriminate against an entire group even if a majority of its members are wrongdoers. Because by doing that we end up punishing innocent people within the group who are not wrongdoers. It goes against the fundamental principles of individualism and justice. You cannot punish innocent people for things they haven't done.

> Much of this prejudice, in all walks of life is nothing more than social dogma which is pushed aggressively from parent to child, down the generations, without any rational thought

Generalisations _can_ be used to push "social dogma", but it doesn't have to be, and it doesn't mean generalisations are automatically a bad thing. They are a useful evolutionary shortcut our brains invented.

If I see 100 people with easily identifiable attribute X, and 90 of them are mean to me, my brain makes a useful shortcut in the form of a label and says "attribute X" is connected to being treated meanly, avoid those guys. It's not that I don't know 10 of them treat me fine, it's just that it's less of a problem to miss out on 10 potential friends to avoid having to deal with 90 meanies.

It's probably important to say that I'm speaking as a "brown person", who has been "discriminated" against plenty in my life. I don't make a fuss when I get "randomly selected" every single time at the airport, because they're working with statistics.